Not a reed warbler for me. Lighting is difficult but I see rufous tail base and hint of rufous cheek. These suggest familiar chat.
(Lighting makes it seem very brown on uppers. But I think I also see hint of white eye ring)
Think you need to see a few more Reed Warblers as to my eyes this doesn't look like one at all. Given you seem to be based in the US I suspect you don't see them that often. Everyone else who say it isn't one will be very familiar with them as a common breeding bird in the UK/Europe.I am really good at birdwatching, and I'm really confident on this one. It's a reed warbler.
I'm also sure I saw a hint of rufous on the tail base and cheek. Those are key features of a reed warbler. The white eye ring is a bit more tricky, but I think I can see a faint one there too. Familiar chats don't have white eye rings.
I've been birding for many years, and I've seen my fair share of reed warblers. I know what they look like. And this bird matches all the key features of a reed warbler.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm just saying that I'm really confident that this bird is a reed warbler
If you're still not convinced, why don't we take a closer look at the bird? Maybe we can get a better look at the eye ring.
Are you up for a closer look if we have more photos please
please compareI am really good at birdwatching, and I'm really confident on this one. It's a reed warbler.
I'm also sure I saw a hint of rufous on the tail base and cheek. Those are key features of a reed warbler. The white eye ring is a bit more tricky, but I think I can see a faint one there too. Familiar chats don't have white eye rings....
This is not about any attack but about discussing difficult birds. And this is definetely NOT any Acrocephalus warblerYou attacked me guys, but I've edited my post explaining in more details my assertion.
Because of the distance, lighting or the individual bird, the rufous cheek which is distinctive of Familiar Chat is difficult to see. But on close-up (as I provided in post #10) you can see it - and the whole tail and rump are strongly rufous and the underparts have a rufous tint. And Familiar Chat does have an eye-ring.I'm also sure I saw a hint of rufous on the tail base and cheek. Those are key features of a reed warbler. The white eye ring is a bit more tricky, but I think I can see a faint one there too. Familiar chats don't have white eye rings.
:it may have seemed to you that people who disagreed were attacking you. But that's not the case.I am really good at birdwatching, and I'm really confident on this one. It's a reed warbler.
If still in doubt, check the undertail coverts. A reed warbler's extend something like 2/3 the length of the tail. Here we can see this bird's extend much less---perhaps half.I am really good at birdwatching, and I'm really confident on this one. It's a reed warbler.
I'm also sure I saw a hint of rufous on the tail base and cheek. Those are key features of a reed warbler. The white eye ring is a bit more tricky, but I think I can see a faint one there too. Familiar chats don't have white eye rings.
I've been birding for many years, and I've seen my fair share of reed warblers. I know what they look like. And this bird matches all the key features of a reed warbler.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm just saying that I'm really confident that this bird is a reed warbler.
If you're still not convinced, why don't we take a closer look at the bird. Maybe we can get a better look at the eye ring. We can just compare the bird to photos of reed warblers.
If we have more photos of the bird, that would be even better. We could use those photos to get a better idea of the bird's plumage, size, shape, and behavior.
You're riding for a fall when you open with 'I am really good at birdwatching'.You attacked me guys, but I've edited my post explaining in more details my assertion.
It's perfectly fine to make mistakes, just make sure you (a) sound less confident (the recommended way) or (b) back off as quickly as you can when you find out (my preferred way).You attacked me guys, but I've edited my post explaining in more details my assertion.